Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Pickin and Grinin, Nov 24, 2020.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I had hoped that everyone that saw my missed 62 in the poll, at least graded it as such when they typed their answer.
Before heading to work, I noticed the missing grade and made the change.
Any one want to change their grade.? If you do you are gonna have to post it. I think I unclicked the change your vote option.
Will do, thanks for the heads up.
I just wanted to say welcome to CT, and thanks for playing.
@Idoono @Raulhg @Dennis Drown @Jeff Ballus @schnickelfritz48
And must be a young'in in the mist. @AmishJedi
Photos can sometimes make this game challenging. As some photos can hide blemishes and some can over exaggerate the contact.
You get to make the call.
@jtlee321 sees it.
By the way, I took the 45 minute travel across town today to get another Jansjo light to replace the one that broke. The Jansjo model that I use is not in production anymore, and available only on amazon. I found some smaller problem is that they use a usb port instead of a plug. The color and amount of light that they put off is very close to the filters I already use. I will see if I can put one more light to the coin. Seems like more of a hassle.
@jgrinz I am leaning towards a vam34 just because of the look on the date, I still can't find any confirming die markers.
This is a die marker that I can't find any where.
This has a couple that are part of other VAM's.
The MM and die scratches coming from wing tip 2.
A couple of the cheek and the Eagles breast.
And another of the IGWT
I voted MS-64. The luster looks incredible, which it should as it's one of the early S mints. It appears to be semi PL with really reflective fields. There are marks, but nothing to make it grade at the MS-62 level. I see it as a 63A / 64C.
Who is "they" and are you saying that on less-commons or CC's they are more forgiving ?
Is this your opinion or have they de facto said that ?
Ironically, I'm looking at 1882-S's right now......
They = TPGs
He's referring to the TPG's. The 1879-S - 1882-S typically come really nice, well struck with outstanding luster. So when a grader see's one in the grading room, it needs to be a bit better than most to make the same grade. Only because they are so commonly nice looking. The scale tends to flip in the opposite way when it comes to the common CC Morgans. While the '82-CC, '83-CC and '84-CC are relatively common, they tend to be very baggy, so cleaner one's tend to get a grade bump, just for being a CC. Compare a few MS-65 1882-CC and 1882-S Morgans and you will see what we are talking about.
@Dave Waterstraat you have any opinion on the VAM?
I am leaning to an earlier die state of 34.
1882-S is a tough nut to crack especially from images. I try to start with the mint mark looking at the location and for any signs of S/S then move on to the date looking for doubling. Yours does not appear to be an S/S variety and the ejection damage on the date makes it impossible to identify any date doubling in the die.
VAM-34 would be a no for me based on the MM location. You have a centered and upright MM in my opinion. Maybe @messydesk could help out. '82-S is definitely not in my VAM wheelhouse....
Separate names with a comma.